DOCSLIB.ORG

Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite During Reactor Decommissioning - 11587

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite During Reactor Decommissioning - 11587 WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite during Reactor Decommissioning - 11587 D.J. Potter*, R.B. Jarvis*, A.W. Banford*, L. Cordingley*, and M. Grave** * National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Birchwood Park, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3 6AE, UK ** Doosan Babcock, Baltic Business Centre, Gateshead, NE8 3DA, UK ABSTRACT Globally, around 230,000 tonnes of irradiated graphite requires retrieval, treatment, management and/or disposal. This waste has arisen from a wide range of reactors, predominantly from the use of graphite moderated reactors for base-load generation, but also from experimental research facilities. Much of the graphite is presently still in the reactor core while other graphite is stored in a variety of forms in waste stores. The first step in the management of this significant waste stream is retrieval of the graphite from its present location. Doosan Babcock and the UK National Nuclear Laboratory are participants in the CARBOWASTE European research project which brings together organisations from a range of countries with an irradiated graphite legacy to address the graphite waste management challenge. This paper describes the issues associated with retrieval of graphite from reactors, potential approaches to graphite retrieval and the information needed to select a particular retrieval method for a specified application. Graphite retrieval is viewed within the context of the wider strategy for the management of irradiated graphite waste streams. The paper identifies the challenges of graphite retrieval and provides some examples where modelling can be used to provide information to support retrievals design and operations. INTRODUCTION A four year collaborative European Project ‘Treatment and Disposal of Irradiated Graphite and other Carbonaceous Waste (CARBOWASTE)’ was launched in April 2008 under the 7th EURATOM Framework Programme [1]. The aim of the project is to develop best practises in the retrieval, treatment and disposal of irradiated graphite (i- graphite), addressing both existing legacy waste as well as waste from graphite-based nuclear fuel resulting from a new generation of nuclear reactors (e.g. V/HTR). The consortium is led by Forshungszentrum, Juelich (FZJ) in Germany and involves 29 partners from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Approximately 230,000 tonnes of legacy graphite exists worldwide. The majority of this irradiated graphite, or i-graphite as it is referred to in this text, currently resides in the WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ UK, France and the former Soviet Union and results from the use of commercial power- generating reactors. Irradiated graphite is also found in demonstration and research reactors in many countries around the world. The CARBOWASTE project was set up to develop integrated waste management strategies for legacy i-graphite reflecting the diversity of policy and regulations that exist between the various states of the European community. In the UK, for example, i- graphite is considered as waste unsuitable for disposal in the existing LLW (low level waste) repository while in France plans are to dispose of i-graphite at a considerably shallower depth than has previously been considered in the UK. The research team considered how an integrated solution could be developed. It was recognised that a ‘toolbox’ approach would be necessary, developing knowledge based on previous practise, where possible, that individual States, utilities or regulators could further develop to provide local solutions. The CARBOWASTE project comprises 6 principal work packages: Work Package 1 Integrated Waste Management Approach [2, 3] Work Package 2 Retrieval and Segregation Work Package 3 Characterisation and Modelling Work Package 4 Treatment and Purification Work Package 5 Recycling and New Products Work Package 6 Disposal behaviour of Graphite and Carbonaceous Waste 29 Beneficiaries in 10 European States and South Africa, who have examined the gaps in knowledge, are undertaking specific tasks to fill in gaps and developing a toolbox of techniques to assist waste managers and others to reach preferred and pragmatic solutions. The project is also promoting knowledge, understanding, and skills among new entrants to the industry, a key EU requirement. Current experience of legacy i-graphite retrieval and segregation comes from the completion of several decommissioning projects. These include; GLEEP Research Reactor Harwell, Windscale AGR, Vandellos 1 silos, Fort St Vrain and Leningrad NPP. An overview of three of the above cases is given in this work. Currently no i-graphite core removal from large scale commercial reactors has been observed. This paper presents the main findings from the work package on retrieval and segregation of legacy waste. The work has focused mainly on the two approaches that might be adopted, via retrieval and segregation in-air or underwater. The paper also gives some examples of where developments in modelling may assist the planning of graphite retrieval and segregation. WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ RETRIEVALS AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY As part of the CARBOWASTE project, a set of criteria for assessing different integrated waste management options has been defined [4]. The criteria are shown in Figure 1. Each of the criteria was expanded into a set of sub-criteria to reflect the information needed to assess an option. This process was completed for the whole lifecycle of a graphite treatment option and so is outside the scope of the present paper, however those parts directly related to retrievals are summarised here. The selected waste route has a significant impact on every stage of the integrated waste management strategy, including retrievals. In addition to this, the key issues impacting on an integrated waste management option directly related to retrievals were: • Economic Cost - Preparations Needed: the structure must be assessed to determine ability to access the graphite requiring retrieval; restrictions may be imposed by the size of penetrations or weight limits. If existing cranes are to be used then these may impose load or access constraints. There may also be a need to fit equipment for the suppression of dusts, depending on the retrieval technique chosen. The radiological properties of the graphite and other parts of the reactor structure must be defined. This allows the crucial selection of when remote operations can be replaced by hands-on operation. Hands-on operation is more flexible and cheaper, but is not possible if radiological dose to workers would be too high. There is also a need to prepare utilities and infrastructure and to perform R&D to develop and test equipment. • Economic Cost - Men/Machines/Treatment Needed: the performance of the men and machines to be used will dictate the duration and cost of the retrievals phase. The i-graphite condition will affect this choice and the assessment must take into account the changes in graphite properties during reactor operation. For example, the graphite swells and blocks may interlock, and the graphite becomes porous and may not be sufficiently strong to allow some types of grabbing during retrieval. • Worker Safety - Radiological Safety: Dose to workers must be minimised. This may make hands-on operations difficult or impossible early in retrievals. It may be possible to perform remote operations to allow man access later in the retrievals process, or to increase shielding. • Worker Safety - Conventional Safety: a retrievals site possesses the usual hazards associated with demolition: falls from height, asphyxiation and so forth. This may suggest the use of machines for certain tasks. • Technology Predictability - Technical Risk: this affects the likelihood of the equipment performing as planned. Highly complex equipment often carries high risks of unforeseen operational difficulties in an active environment if it is inadequately tested. Conversely, hands-on actions can often be deployed more flexibly, although unforeseen levels of radioactivity may bring work to a halt. Minimising risk by maximising retrieval system operability is a key consideration for retrievals. WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ Retrievals Assessment Criteria Economic Cost and Benefit Environment and Public Safety Worker Safety Security Technology Predictability Stability of Employment Burden on Future Generations Figure 1: Retrievals assessment criteria THE GENERIC RETRIEVAL AND SEGREGATION PROCESS The CARBOWASTE project developed the generic flow diagram for retrievals and segregation which is shown in Figure 2. The key influences in retrievals process selection were identified above. In summary these are: the primary waste route, the access within the reactor, the i-graphite condition, the working environment, and operability. The generic flow diagram is intended to fit the majority of i-graphite retrieval and segregation projects. Each step of the flow diagram is discussed below. Sampling Plan Access to Handling/ Segregate Dispatch Core Removal Figure 2: Generic flow diagram for an i-graphite retrieval and segregation process WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ Plan The planning step requires the following information to be obtained: 1. Regulatory requirements. 2. Description of the original reactor design.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NRC Collection of Abbreviations
    I Nuclear Regulatory Commission c ElLc LI El LIL El, EEELIILE El ClV. El El, El1 ....... I -4 PI AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. 0. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica- tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive. Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu- ments and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the Government Printing Office: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro- ceedings, international agreement reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and bro- chures. Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula- tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical Information Service Include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates a & B)
    Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates A & B) August 2011 Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell – Credible and Preferred Options (Gates A & B) Issue 1 Doc Ref: SMS/TS/C3-EF/RSRL/001/A-B Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates A & B) August 2011 Contents Contents.......................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................3 1 Background ..........................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Objective ..........................................................................................4 1.2 Harwell Fuel, Nuclear Materials and Wastes ...............................................4 1.4 What is Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU)? .......................................................5 1.5 What are concrete-lined drums? ..................................................................5 1.6 What are contact-handled Intermediate Level Waste (CHILW) drums?.......5 1.7 Hazard Potential and Reduction?.................................................................6 2 Strategic Case......................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Situation..........................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • R:\TEMP\Bobbi\RDD-8 3-16-04 Reprint.Wpd
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO THE PRESENT (RDD-8) January 1, 2002 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Classification Contains information which may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), exemption number(s) 2. Approval by the Department of Energy prior to public release is required. Reviewed by: Richard J. Lyons Date: 3/20/2002 NOTICE This document provides historical perspective on the sequence of declassification actions performed by the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. It is meant to convey the amount and types of information declassified over the years. Although the language of the original declassification authorities is cited verbatim as much as possible to preserve the historical intent of the declassification, THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DECLASSIFYING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS without specific authorization from the Director, Information Classification and Control Policy. Classification guides designed for that specific purpose must be used. OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page intentionally left blank OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOREWORD This document supersedes Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - 1946 To The Present (RDD-7), January 1, 2001. This is the eighth edition of a document first published in June 1994. This latest edition includes editorial corrections to RDD-7, all declassification actions that have been made since the January 1, 2001, publication date of RDD-7 and any additional declassification actions which were subsequently discovered or confirmed. Note that the terms “declassification” or “declassification action,” as used in this document, refer to changes in classification policy which result in a specific fact or concept that was classified in the past being now unclassified.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Reactors : the First Generation
    AA shortshort HistoryHistory ofof ReactorsReactors :: TheThe firstfirst GenerationGeneration Bertrand BARRÉ Scientific Advisor AREVA Pr. Emeritus INSTN Oklo, Gabon : Generation 0 Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.2 Nuclear reactors « Generations » Future Advanced Operating Nuclear Systems Reactors Reactors Pionner Facilities 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation IV Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – October 2010. - p.3 Fission 1938 - 1942 1938 : Fermi plays with neutrons & U. Hahn-Meitner say «fission !» 1939 : Joliot et al. «chain reaction» 1942 : Staggs Field Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.4 December 2, 1942 Prospects & Prerequisites to Renaissance – B. Barré Gassummit 2009 The 50s : Nuclear Electricity 1956 : Inauguration of Calder Hall by Elisabeth II 1951 : EBR 1 lits 4 Bulbs) 1954 : Obninsk, 5 MWe Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.6 Obninsk 5 MWe NPP Calder Hall : from Opening to Decommissioning Prospects & Prerequisites to Renaissance – B. Barré Gassummit 2009 Paleontology Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.8 Many Possible Combinations Fissile Material U235, Pu, U233 Fertile Material U238, Th232 Moderator D2O, Graphite, H2O, or none Fuel Composition Metal, oxide, carbide, nitride, salt, solid, liquid, suspension Fuel Geometry Cylinder, rod, pin, sphere, particle Coolant Air, H2O, D2O, CO2, He, Na, Pb Cycle Direct, indirect Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.9
    [Show full text]
  • October 3 2011 the Rise and Fall of the Fast
    Fall 08 October 3 2011 The rise and fall of the fast breeder reactor technology in the UK: between engineering “dreams” and economic “realities”? Markku Lehtonen Jenny Lieu 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 6 II. The inception of the nuclear power programme (from 1940) 9 2.1 Military ambitions 10 2.1.1 The early pioneers (early 1940s) 10 2.1.2 The Atomic Project (mid-1940s) 11 2.1.3 Windscale reactors (from late 1940s to 1950s) 16 2.2 The civil nuclear power programme 17 2.2.1 Motivations for the nuclear programme and the creation of the AEA (1950s) 17 2.2.2 British reactor technologies (1950s to 1980s) 18 2.2.3 Plan to privatise the electricity industry... 21 2.2.4 ...and the withdrawal of nuclear from privatisation 23 2.3 Summary of the evolution of the UK nuclear sector 27 III. The fast breeder reactor dream: expectations for the future 29 3.1 FBR as the long term goal 30 3.1.1 Dounreay Experimental Fast Reactor, DFR (1950s to mid-1960s) 31 3.1.2 Prototype Fast Reactor, PFR (mid-1960s to 1970s) 33 IV. The long decline 38 4.1 AEA split-up and the erosion of institutional support for fast breeders? (1970s) 38 4.2 Towards a commercial fast breeder reactor (CFR) and international collaboration (1970s) 39 4.3 RCEP’s 6th report – the “Flowers Report” (1970s) 41 4.4 Reprocessing, proliferation concerns and the Windscale Inquiry (late 1970s) 43 4.4.1 The institution of public inquiry and the run-up to Windscale Inquiry 44 4.4.2 Reprocessing, FBRs and proliferation fears 46 4.4.3 The outcome of the Inquiry: landmark of participatory decision-making or a symbol of opposition against the ‘nuclear complex’? 47 4.5 CFR – an experimental or commercial reactor? (late 1970s) 49 4.6 "Thatcher the scientist" takes office: an interlude of optimism in the fast reactor community (late 1970s) 50 4.7 International collaboration - preparations for the 'fallback option' begin (late 1970s to 1980s) 51 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Recent Work Title LIST OF UNCLASSIFIED REPORTS RECEIVED AND ISSUED BY THE UCRL INFORMATION DIVISION DURING THE PERIOD OF APRIL 15-30, 1957 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7tc1r2v8 Author Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Publication Date 1957-05-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UCRL. - 3765 UNIVERSITY OF ( ,( ,• ., ' • CALIFORNIA TWO-WEEK lOAN COPY This is a Library Circulating Copy which may be borrowed for two weeks. For a personal retention copy, call Tech. Info. Division, Ext. 5545 BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or the Regents of the University of California. UCRI..-3765 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Radiation Laborato:ry Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Graphite Waste Management
    Technical Committee meeting held in Manchester, United Kingdom, o 18-20 October 1999 o ro 00 CD O Nuclear Graphite Waste Management Foreword Copyright/Editorial note Contents Summary List of participants Related IAEA priced publications INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY Copyright © IAEA, 2001 Published by the IAEA in Austria May 2001 Individual papers may be downloaded for personal use; single printed copies may be made for use in research and teaching. Redistribution or sale of any material on the CD-ROM in machine readable or any other form is prohibited. EDITORIAL NOTE This publication has been prepared from the original material as submitted by the authors. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA, the governments of the nominating Member States or the nominating organizations. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. The authors are responsible for having obtained the necessary permission for the IAEA to reproduce, translate or use material from sources already protected by copyrights. FOREWORD Graphite and carbon have been used as a moderator and reflector of neutrons in more than one hundred nuclear power plants, mostly in the United Kingdom (Magnox and AGRs), France (UNGGs), the former USSR (RBMK), the United States of America (HTR) and Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernest Marsden's Nuclear New Zealand
    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Vol. 139, p. 23–38, 2006 ISSN 0035-9173/06/010023–16 $4.00/1 Ernest Marsden’s Nuclear New Zealand: from Nuclear Reactors to Nuclear Disarmament rebecca priestley Abstract: Ernest Marsden was secretary of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research from 1926 to 1947 and the Department’s scientific adviser in London from 1947 to 1954. Inspired by his early career in nuclear physics, Marsden had a post-war vision for a nuclear New Zealand, where scientists would create radioisotopes and conduct research on a local nuclear reactor, and industry would provide heavy water and uranium for use in the British nuclear energy and weapons programmes, with all these ventures powered by energy from nuclear power stations. During his retirement, however, Marsden conducted research into environmental radioactivity and the impact of radioactive bomb fallout and began to oppose the continued development and testing of nuclear weapons. It is ironic, given his early enthusiasm for all aspects of nuclear development, that through his later work and influence Marsden may have actually contributed to what we now call a ‘nuclear-free’ New Zealand. Keywords: Ernest Marsden, heavy water, nuclear, New Zealand INTRODUCTION to nuclear weapons development – which he was happy to support in the 1940s and 1950s In the 1990s, Ross Galbreath established Ernest – changed in his later years. By necessity this Marsden as having been the driving force be- article includes some material already covered hind the involvement of New Zealand scientists by Galbreath and Crawford but it also covers on the Manhattan and Montreal projects, the new ground.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Approach to Nuclear Energy
    Survey of Nuclear Politics WNU Summer Institute 2008 Bertrand BARRÉ Professor Emeritus, INSTN – Scientific Advisor AREVA Chairman INEA 1 - B. Barré WNU Summer Institute July 2008 2000 : 6 billion People consumed 10 Gtoe 6,8% Oil Gas 35% Coal Wood,… Nuclear 23,5% Hydro Renew. 21% 2006 : 6.5 billion People consumed 12 Gtoe 2 - B. Barré WNU Summer Institute July 2008 Nuclear Power 2007 Country GWe TWh Units %Elec USA 99 807 104 19 France 63 420 59 77 Japan 48 267 55 28 Russian Fed. 22 148 31 16 S Korea 18 137 20 35 Germany 20 133 17 26 Canada 13 88 18 15 Ukraine 13 87 15 48 Sweden 9 64 10 46 China 9 59 11 2 WORLD 372 2 608 439 16 WNA June 2008 3 - B. Barré WNU Summer Institute July 2008 52 Years of Nuclear Power 439 reactors in 30 countries 2600 billion kWh/year = Hydro-power > Saudi Oil 16% Electricity 6,5% Primary energy 4 - B. Barré WNU Summer Institute July 2008 Climate change is the defining human development issue of our generation Today, we are witnessing at first hand what could be the onset of major human development reversal in our lifetime. Looking to the future, the danger is that it will stall and then reverse progress built-up over generations not just in cutting extreme poverty, but in health, nutrition,education and other areas. www.undp.org 5 - B. Barré WNU Summer Institute July 2008 IPCC established in 1988 Anthropogenic interference with the climate system ? WMO UNEP »IPCC 1990 : Maybe, Maybe not »IPCC 1995 : Maybe »IPCC 2001 : Likely »IPCC 2007 : Very Likely ! IPCC 2007 Findings Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments and Challenges in Graphite Management
    Innovative Approaches to the Management of Irradiated Nuclear Graphite Wastes: Addressing the Challenges through International Collaboration with Project ‘GRAPA’ A.J. Wickham1, M.Ojovan2 and P. O’Sullivan2 1Nuclear Technology Consultancy, Builth Wells, UK and The University of Manchester 2International Atomic Energy Agency (Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology) In Decommissioning… “Graphite is a Difficult Material” (Michele Laraia: this conference, Wednesday morning!) Unique, yes… Difficult? Maybe not, if we stop being indecisive! >250,000 tonnes irradiated graphite world-wide (“i-graphite”) • Mostly from reactor moderators and reflectors • Some from nuclear fuel elements • Fast neutrons cause ‘damage’ to the graphitic crystal structures leading components to shrink and distort, to crack, and therefore, long-term, can result in the reactor being closed down because fuel and control rods cannot be guaranteed to move freely; • Ionising radiation (principally gamma) results in oxidation if the graphite is in air or (most often) carbon dioxide; • Slow neutrons create new radioactive isotopes both from the graphite (i.e. 14C, 36Cl) and from impurities; • Graphite stacks may also contain metallic components (wires, pins etc.) • The UK has >80,000 tonnes or irradiated graphite wastes; world-wide there are 250,000 tonnes. France (~30,000 tonnes) and Ignalina NPP in Lithuania, (~3,400 tonnes) need a quick solution... • Member States entering the HTR ‘arena’ must have a plan for their i-graphite and carbonaceous wastes • There are no suitable disposal facilities yet. • What to do? Current Options may appear to be: • ‘Safe Storage’ in reactor vessels or containments •Treatment of fuel pebbles/particles and/or graphite • Progress with deep repository construction • Case for shallow repository disposal • Do nothing! … … … but we should also think laterally! Temporary Storage DISMANTLING..
    [Show full text]
  • Iaea Nuclear Energy Series Publications
    P1432_cover.indd 1 2011-07-08 13:13:09 IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning. In addition, the publications are available in English on the IAEA’s Internet site: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/index.html For further information, please contact the IAEA at PO Box 100, Vienna International Centre, 1400 Vienna, Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • Transactions
    mi •'.<• TRN.._. INIS-mf—1447] • N .S • Volume 18 THE NUCLEAR SOCIETIES OF ISRAEL The Israel Nuclear Society The Israel Society for Radiation Protection Radiation Research Society of Israel The Israel Society of Medical Physics TRANSACTIONS JOINT MEETING 1994 Tel Aviv Hilton November 28-29, 1994 Volume 18 THE NUCLEAR SOCIETIES OF ISRAEL The Israel Nuclear Society The Israel Society for Radiation Protection Radiation Research Society of Israel The Israel Society of Medical Physics TRANSACTIONS JOINT MEETING 1994 Tel Aviv Hilton November 28-29, 1994 Organizing Committee E. Elias (Chairman), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion L. Tepper, Prsident of the Israel Nuclear Society, Israel Electric Corp. A. Galperin, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ben Gurion University of the Negev S. Dahan, Nuclear Research Centre - Negev P. Dikstein, Israel Atomic Energy Commission A. Ketter, Israel Atomic Energy Commission J. Szabo, Israel Atomic Energy Commission Y. Kalish, Beilinson Medical Center L. Reznik, Israel Electric Corporation, Ltd. E. Riklis, Nuclear Research Center - Negev T. Shlezinger, Soreq Nuclear Research Center M. Shapira, Soreq Nuclear Research Center This Meeting was made possible by the assistance and generosity of: Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Israel Electric Corporation, Ltd. Israel Atomic Energy Commission Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure אוקטובר 1994 דברים לזכרן של יצחק גן נ 1 זייל ב 27- בטפטמבר 1993 הלך לעולמו יצחק נונן ,נr ותיקי עובדיה הבכיריס של קמ"נ ,לאחר מחלה קצרה בטרס מלאו לו 63 שניס. יצחק נונן היה מוכר לכל עובדי קמ"נ והועדה לאנרניה אטומית, כאחד ממניחי היטודות וכמי שהתווה יותר מכל אדט אהר את דמותו ואת אופיו של מערך הבטיחות הענף שהוקס בה, מערך הממשיך לפעול, למעשה, במתכונת שהתווה יצחק גרנן עד עצס היוס הזה.
    [Show full text]